If all are part of same United Kingdom, then why laws are different?
For example,
Buying house is different
University rules are different
No wheel clamping there
|
Quite simple really Movi. The Scots are more civilised.
:-)
|
I dont know enough about it but I understand Scottish rather than English has been chosen as the basis of other countries statute books? We're not alone then.
Some logically weird constructs - not proven? Yer guilty as sin, but we canny hing it oan ye. Can't get my head around that, suspect I never will.
Our idea of corroboration is another one. Seems unfairly restrictive in some cases but I'm sure there's a flip side, I've not thought about it much.
|
In May the Celtic manager was attacked on the touchline by a Hearts fan.
The fan pled guilty of assault , it was captured live on TV and brought a discussion in The Scottish Parliament led by Alex Salmonds condemnation.
Today in court the assault charge was found not proven.
|
Developed independently since after Roman times, and largely remain seperate entities.
Private wheel clamping and not releasing until a fee has been paid was deemed to be the equivalent of Extortion legally in Scotland.
|
>> Private wheel clamping and not releasing until a fee has been paid was deemed to
>> be the equivalent of Extortion legally in Scotland.
>>
At least one major clamping company has its registered office in Perth.
Wonderful things these double standards.
|
|
.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Tue 30 Aug 11 at 17:00
|
I think its to make it easier when we cut them off without a penny....sorry I forgot, when they gain independance.
Whats that? A pig, you say? Flying? Well I never.
|
At least we can spell independence.
Scottish education always was so much more thorough...
:-)
|
|
Pity they didnt teach them sport as well tho...
|
Sport?
2011 winners of the Homeless World Cup dontcha know?
;-)
|
...At least we can spell independence...
Pity you can't pay for it as well.
|
|
Think of it as reparations.
|
...Think of it as reparations...
For what?
Don't tell me, some grievous wrong carried out 500 years ago which is dredged up any time to suit.
|
A United Kingdom comprising four nations. Scotland and (Northern) Ireland had their own way of doing things.Wales tended to be as one wit England as they'd been under the English heel since the 13th century. Since devolution Wales too has begun to go its own way in areas such as Health and Education.
It's taking the UK government an awful long time to come to terms with devolution. The machine really struggles to work through the implications of UK wide proposals that might impinge issues that are devolved to Welsh or Scottish Adminstrations.
|
|
The welsh and scottish administrations are pretty keen to stick their nose into things that affect England tho.
|
|
That's some chip Zed - sure you don't have Jock ancestry ? ;-)
|
|
No chip, just fed up paying for them,.
|
|
Might as well direct the sentiment to everywhere in the UK outside London.
|
|
The South East gets more indirect subsidy than the rest of the UK put together.
|
www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Gy7f8vP2QY
Might be worth watching this - Paxman nailed to the floor by someone who knows his facts.
|
>> www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Gy7f8vP2QY
>>
>> Might be worth watching this - Paxman nailed to the floor by someone who knows
>> his facts.
>>
Absolute treat to see the old Wooden sideboard STUFFED by a decent man. Passed by the OWS at the Gamefair some years ago. Stuffy as you like the pompous Git.
|
>> The South East gets more indirect subsidy than the rest of the UK put together.
Example?
|
He confirms it, they get more aid than england.
Wales is not viable on its own.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 30 Aug 11 at 21:18
|
|
Doesn't it say that London gets even more?
|
|
He never mentions direct aid.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 30 Aug 11 at 21:28
|
|
Nor indirect, the phrase used is 'identifiable public spending.' Both London and Wales seem to be spending more than they earn.
|
|
On there no, not enough time. On the internet no doubt.
|
>>The welsh and scottish administrations are pretty keen to stick their nose into things that affect England tho.
someone needs to keep you lot in check !
|
>> Divide & Rule.
>>
>> :-)
>>
I faled taht at skool
|
I don't think they are "so different" are they? They have both derived from the same Greek/Roman/northern European tradition but have pursued slightly different paths in some respects. But both have the same adversarial rather than investigatory criminal law system, for example, unlike French.
And they all work on the principle that laws start from rules, which you either follow or break. The prosecutor tries to show the rule has been broken, the defender tries to show that either the rule was not broken or it doesn't apply (Segway not a motor vehicle, etc).
I read that the Russian tradition for example is traditionally totally different. Laws specify objectives. Whether something is legal or not is judged according to whether it aids or hinders the objective. So they don't argue whether an apple core constitutes litter or not as defined in the act, they look at whether throwing it away makes the street untidy.
|
...I don't think they are "so different" are they?...
From what I can gather, the criminal courts are very similar, they just have different names, as do some of the major players.
|
>> From what I can gather, the criminal courts are very similar, they just have different
>> names, as do some of the major players.
Certainly true in a Sheriff = Magistrate kind of sense. Process and rules of evidence differ a bit though. Children's panels seem a much more rational and humane way of dealing with youthful offenders.
Rights of way and access to open spaces seem quite different as well. Scottish maps rarely if ever show a public footpath or bridleway over open country.
|
...Children's panels seem a much more rational and humane way of dealing with youthful offenders...
Hard to judge given the secrecy surrounding youth courts.
I take it you've sat in a few professionally, and as a hack, I am allowed in, but the public are not.
None of the youths I've seen dealt with were treated inhumanely.
Quite the reverse, there's a bit too much 'touchy-feely arm around the shoulder' going on for my liking.
Everyone's entitled to second chance, but I've seen youngsters with literally dozens of previous convictions get yet another meaningless referral order.
Hard to see how justice is served, particularly for the victims.
Doesn't do much for the criminal, either.
He (it's usually a he) comes to regard going to court as a joke, carries on offending, turns 18, and then comes a cropper if he's unfortunate enough to appear before a proper judge in the adult court.
|
Different approch altogether Iffy.
www.scra.gov.uk/children_s_hearings_system/index.cfm
I've no professional involvement with either system. Just seems common sense that children exhibiting one set of problems might have others and therefore logical to handle all of them in one place.
|
...Different approach altogether Iffy...
It certainly is.
I'd like to know if Scotland has a significantly smaller problem with youth offending than England.
Tempting to say I doubt it, but it's something that would be difficult, if not impossible, to research accurately.
|
>> I'd like to know if Scotland has a significantly smaller problem with youth offending than England
Doubt it.
There have been some seemingly good developments but these are outwith the judicial system, e.g. www.includem.org/ got some good press recently.
|
>> There have been some seemingly good developments but these are outwith the judicial system, e.g.
>> www.includem.org/ got some good press recently.
That's a bit of Scottish english I've long adopted. Just a bit neater than outside of or clumsier constructions. I've had to ask Scots colleagues for translations of Stramash, Stushie and Retiral though
|
...That's a bit of Scottish english I've long adopted...
I only hear 'outwith' regularly in court from barristers.
The geographical origin of words is something else that's hard to research.
Most of the barristers are English, but it is the far north of England, so the word could have dribbled across the border.
'Outside' does the same job.
Last edited by: Iffy on Wed 31 Aug 11 at 11:21
|
I was always puzzled by:
There is a green hill far away,
Without a city wall.
I don't think outwith would have helped much.
|
>> I was always puzzled by:
>> There is a green hill far away,
>> Without a city wall.
>>
>> I don't think outwith would have helped much.
>>
The word in the lyrics is 'outside'
|
>> >> Without a city wall.
>> >>
>>
>> The word in the lyrics is 'outside'
Not in my school hymn book, which I suspect follows Mrs CF Alexander's original text.
Prayers and Hymns for Junior Schools. First printed 1933, the version I failed to return is a 1964 reprint.
|
outwith the judicial system,
>> That's a bit of Scottish english I've long adopted.
The other Scottish (and North Country English) construction that comes to mind is when something "needs done". e.g. the grass needs cut. Peculiar to stick a past participle there.
Is it because of a failure to include "to be" to make it an infinitive. Or is it in the mistaken belief that "needs cutting" is a present participle and therefore a past participle makes more sense?
|
>> The welsh and scottish administrations are pretty keen to stick their nose into things that
>> affect England tho.
Worse, the West Lothian question. Whereby Scottish MPs vote in Westminster on issues that will not affect their own constituents, but will only affect English and Welsh.
|
|
I blame the voters, who in their right mind would allow those two classic Scots Blair and Brown the chance to almost destroy the country. On the other hand who could do better, politicians, aren't they just brilliant?
Last edited by: Old Navy on Wed 31 Aug 11 at 15:21
|
>>who in their right mind would allow those two classic Scots Blair and Brown the chance to almost destroy the country. On the other hand who could do better, politicians, aren't they just brilliant?<<
I believe Ed Milliband would be OK if given 'the chance'.
I also believe in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, oh - and knockers!
www.cornishknockers.com/knockerpedia/
|
|
Perhaps a Scottish forum member could correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought that it was one of the conditions of the Union of the Crowns in 1707 that Scotland was to retain its existing legal system. The Scottish system was based on Roman law (and as a result is closer to the laws of most of Europe than it is to England) whereas English law is based on precedent.
|
|
Not a Scot but have some professional contact with its legal system. My understanding, at least in so far as it being part of the deal on Union is concerned, is the same as FF's.
|
>> The Scottish system was based on Roman law
I don't think that's right? My understanding is Scots law was basically a hodge podge of various sources and evolved over many years.
Although wiki says:
An early Scottish legal compilation, Regiam Majestatem, was based heavily on Glanvill's English law treatise, although it also contains elements of civil law, feudal law, canon law, customary law and native Scots statutes. Although there was some indirect Roman law influence on Scots law, via the civil law and canon law used in the church courts, the direct influence of Roman law was slight up until around the mid-fifteenth century.[1] After this time, Roman law was often adopted in argument in court, in an adapted form, where there was no native Scots rule to settle a dispute; and Roman law was in this way partially received into Scots law. Thus comparative law classifies Scots law as a mixed legal system, a group that also contains South African law and the legal systems of Louisiana, Quebec and Puerto Rico.
Edit: so i guess that still represents the state of play today. E.g. in Scotland a verbal agreement is binding, in England it's not (the difficult bit is proving the verbal agreement happened!)
Last edited by: Skoda on Wed 7 Sep 11 at 11:32
|
|
In English contract law a verbal agreement is as binding as a written contract. Indeed it need not even be verbal. A nod of the head in an auction constitutes a legally binding bid
|
>> .....of the Union of the Crowns in 1707
The union of the crowns was in 1603, the parliaments united in 1707
|
|
Oops - got my unions mixed up......
|
Why laws in Scotland are so different? - Runfer D'Hills
